Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Moz has its own ways of determining if a link/site might be potential spam. As they don't know the disavow data of websites that is something that is not taken into account when calculating Domain Authority. I do believe they take their own measures and calculate that against the Domain Authority/Page Authority metrics.

Also, at some point you need a higher quantity of links, building 10 links over a period of months usually isn't a great signal to search engines that your site needs a boost. If it's just for a specific page, then ignore my comment on it. But usually, I notice that sites need more attention than just building links.

No worries, let us know if it changes anything.

Hi Kirk,

Try pinging the URLs of these old pages to Google (http://www.google.com/ping?sitemap=URL/of/file), if you have a list of the pages on the old site that's something that I would try. What could be causing this is that these old pages were barely visited by the crawlers and because of that they're not being picked up yet as being redirected. Basically, by pinging them to Google (a bit of an oldskool technique) you can trigger a crawl of them and hopefully, this will help.

Martijn.

Uhh, that's not what the requester is looking for and could actually cause tons of problems if you would apply this on a site that you're unaware of. I would always go with the most limiting robots.txt that you can and in this case, I would go with: /?filter=

If you have the resources available and don't have many other priorities. It could be worth it to switch over, but honestly, if I would be in the situation and have many other things to change as well I wouldn't make this a priority. In the end, you're already benefiting from most of the upsides with data-vocabulary and Schema.org isn't going to get you much more. It will likely be a good thing for the future to move over as most of the new extensions are becoming available for Schema.org, but if you have very little upside I wouldn't make the migration right away.

That will be 'Total linking domains' . It's the number of different sites that are linking to yours. The second one that otherwise would be used is the sum of the two external links (follow/nofollow). That's the number that you'd get if you take the number of links from every individual name.

... Yes, would be my best answer. Right now I can't think of a scenario where having an orphaned landing page is a good idea in any case. In most cases, you always want to have a page that is useful for everybody and that can be easily found by a search engine as well. So the worst thing to do, to ensure that the page isn't orphaned would be to create an XML sitemap to still help a search engine to find the actual page.

This is a tough one, I have been in the same industry before (education) and in some cases, Google will see the word training the same as the word course. So I'd start with trying to find out what the overlap is with your competitors in ranking for these keywords. If the same sites/pages are ranking then you don't need to create another page and probably can optimize the current one to address the issues. If that's not the case then I would clearly look into creating a second page, but as the keywords are so aligned I would do my best to create a truly unique page instead of just replacing training with course.

Hi Tom,

Likely due to the internal linking structure of the subcategory your page /kinderfiets/kinderfiets is ranking better or it just has some more history/relevance. My guess is that it's likely a close call knowing the Dutch market a bit. You're mentioning that the canonical tag is active, but they're also both unique as they are self-referencing. So basically they don't play a role at all as you're suggesting that they're not the same page and both could rank.

Martijn.

Hi Dennis,

I wouldn't worry too much about this, in the end having the same server location and CMS have such an incredibly tiny impact on your SEO that there is likely 100 other things to worry about first. Content + Links and many other things are much more valuable to focus on than having to worry about a competitors server.

Hope this helps!

Martijn.

In Real-time reports, Google Analytics will not always be able to pinpoint the location (and in this case, it could be that the users aren't domestic, but that's hard to guess from just that screenshot). I would go into your Google Analytics account: Audience > Geo and look at the country/region reports in there to see where your traffic is coming from.

I wouldn't block any of these users from your site, in the end, the only thing they could hurt at massive volume is site speed. But I doubt that's an issue for you if you're at 19 visitors in real-time. Overall, there shouldn't be any dangers, and even if this data is not correct, you can always apply an Advanced Segment in Google Analytics to exclude these users if needed.

Pretty sure that this might have changed your domain authority: https://moz.com/blog/comprehensive-analysis-domain-authority

No. Just No. I would never put my money or efforts on any of this. A high DA doesn't mean anything if it still looks like spam (which this clearly does).

Hi Rogier,

1. Yes, this is usually counting towards crawl budgets as Googlebot is doing this per request.
2. It depends on how your request is being set up obviously, otherwise, I would advise going with the exclusion for the robots.txt that you're already heading towards.

Hope this helps!

Hi Ian,

Pointing the canonical tag to the right URL that you want to rank won't work like you're hoping for and is not what the canonical tag is at the end meant to do. What I would focus on is optimizing the page that you want to rank, for a start you likely should look into adding a link from the current ranking page to the one that you want to start ranking, if you haven't already done that. At the end that's going to help you with both ranks the right page, but also might help the second page to be visible in the top 10 so you take multiple spots for an increased share of voice.

Martijn.

No, doing this at bulk shouldn't necessarily hurt them when you make sure that you're doing it the right way with the proper redirects in place. In the end, you see tons of sites that are going out of business or change domain names and move the data over to a new domain. So that's why your bulk action isn't such a big problem.

Their sort of is, let me give you an example of how this would work. If you normally would get 1-2 links per week and all of a sudden you jump up to 10+ links a week then you're off from your usual pattern and likely some signals are going to be noticing that. It is going to depend on how naturally you've been able to acquire these links, if that would look unnatural then I can imagine that a search engine would take precautions and likely look at the links different. If you've always been consistent on this topic then you likely have to worry less. In the end, it's usually all about having a natural look.

Hi Roman,

You can do it both ways, you can include the Organization/Corporate Contact schema on all of your pages. But at the same time, you can also link it back to your homepage Schema so you don't have to include it on both pages. That way you basically point back to your homepage's Schema. Usually, for easiness, you just include it everywhere.

Martijn.

Hi,

Have you checked the plugins that you're using within Firefox? It could be that one of the plugins will be causing the issue and is appending this to the actual URL.

Martijn.

Hi,

Can you clarify what you mean by: "none of the links are actually linked within the sitemaps"? Do you mean that some pages aren't part of the sitemaps?

Martijn.